- 1 User_talk:126.96.36.199
- 2 MyBB
- 3 OELib
- 4 Please explain
- 5 Webapps.svg - Reply
- 6 rtkba
- 7 Gun politics
- 8 Gun violence
- 9 discussion
- 10 Lutheran penance
- 11 AfD nomination of Simple Machines Forum
- 12 Undo in "Gun violence in the United States"
- 13 Question
- 14 Articles from banned users
- 15 RFC discussion of User:Bugapi
- 16 It will never be officially recognized, because it's a made-up term designed to castigate one's foes
- 17 Hoplophobia
- 18 ArbCom elections are now open!
Corpx, I noticed that you left a final notice on this talk page for spam links. This morning, I noticed that the user had added links to 10 more articles (Special:Contributions/188.8.131.52). I just thought I'd let you know since I was reverting the edits, but I'm unaware of what to do with the user. --Hamitr 17:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I added the spam4 warning after after he/she posted the edit to FuseTalk. So, I was waiting for the user to make 1 more edit after final warning to report. Looks like the spammer has stopped though. Corpx 19:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Why did you take it off the free list? It is free. BlackxxJapan 06:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just to be pedantic, your edit summary ("External links: rm good faith addition of EL per discussion") was not quite accurate. My edit involved moving existing external links in the body of the article down to the EL section - along with some major refactoring... so not exactly a good faith addition. Anyway, I generally agree with you on the links appropriateness, there just hadn't been any more significant discussion about them so I was giving them the benefit of the doubt by not completely removing them.--Marcinjeske (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you had reverted a change to mention OpenEye Scientific Software on OELib. It is relevant as the OE in OELib seems to stand for OpenEye. I have added it again for now. Please leave me a message if you feel strongly about removing it again. fintler 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind on that last post, I didn't realize there was already a link to OE. Sorry fintler 16:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Please explain your reasoning for removing the POV warning tag here. That tag says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.". Yet, you removed the tag. Do you dispute that I dispute the neutrality of the article? If yes, we have a disagreement. Then, will you agree to follow WP:DR procedures with me to resolve our disagreement? If not, will you please self-revert your removal of the tag? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Webapps.svg - Reply
It is not a question of "disagreeing with another editor's rationale". Yaf is continually trying to include mis-reported information that is mathematically impossible and has ignored all explanations that demonstrate it is, and ignored all requests to clarify their own position. That is the entire basis of their "POV" claim. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI User:Anastrophe has withdrawn the allegation that the statistics I added were WP:OR and not a correction to the table as I had maintained. I am awaiting a similar reply from User:Yaf before withrawing my request for help in resolving this matter at the WP:OR Noticeboard. You meanwhile have added an edit warring note to my user page (presumably because I had already added one to Yaf's page). You did not add one to User:Anastrophe's talk page, even though he too had been warring about the same data.The table in the data was clearly wrong as 65% of homicides were committed with a gun in the USA in that year and not 39% as User:Yaf and User:Anastrophe had claimed. It might have been more helpful if you had looked at the numbers to help resolve the dispute. --Hauskalainen (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
In my former LCMS church, we were required to go to Holy Absolution (meaning private confession) before receiving the Eucharist (not only for the first time, but I couldn't be in a "state of sin" any time, therefore I had to confess frequently). Each time I confessed, my pastor, after the absolution, would request that I read a few passages from the bible to help "strengthen my faith". He would say something like "As you have cursed, I feel you should read Exodus 20:1-17 and say the Lord's Prayer to strengthen your faith in Christ." I have since converted to Catholicism and confess weekly. My Catholic penance (such as "read Matthew 26:17-30" or "say three Hail Marys) is quite similar to the Lutheran pastor giving be bible passages to read and general prayers to pray (such as "read Exodus 20:1-17" and "say the Lord's Prayer"). Shark96z (talk · contribs) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Simple Machines Forum
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Simple Machines Forum. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple Machines Forum. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Undo in "Gun violence in the United States"
Why did you undo the deleting of
"By the Kleck study, however, most successful preventions of victimizations are accomplished without a shot being fired, which are not counted as a self-defense firearm usage by either the Hemenway or McDowall studies."
when this is obviously wrong??
As table 2 in the McDowall without any doubt shows, cases in which guns only had been used to threat the offender, are counted as a DGU.
The same for Hemenway. Read the right column of p.265. The second example for counted gun-uses proves that.
Did you ever read the articles????
I've made this comment on the Second Amendment's talk page, but I'd like to bring it to your attention. I believe in your rush to remove Salty's "200 solved cases" edit you assumed my edit relating to continued controversy was his as well. We need a statement regarding continued questions to keep the lead neutral, and before Salty added 200 cases the sentence read quite differently. I'm wondering if you'd take a look at the previous version and possibly reinstate it. Thanks! 21:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Articles from banned users
According to the banning policy, "(b)y banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason." This is one reason why pointing out that an article was started by a banned user sometimes surfaces in deletion discussions. The other purely mechanical reasons, of course, are to suggest why further inputs from a banned user may not be forthcoming, or that notice to the originating author may not be effective, either. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
RFC discussion of User:Bugapi
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Bugapi (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bugapi. -- RadioFan (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It will never be officially recognized, because it's a made-up term designed to castigate one's foes
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Hoplophobia. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Orangemike, take a chill pill. I didn't add commentary or anything else to the article. I was simply reverting StopYourBull's nonconstructive edits. Please feel free to edit the article if you see something amiss. --Hamitr (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- He openly admits that he coined the term because as a strong partisan (with no psychological expertise whatsoever) he felt a perceived "need"' for a term with which to brand his political opponents as suffering from "a mental aberration consisting of an unreasoning terror of gadgetry". How is that not a textbook pejorative? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)